From The Barrel

Bheki Gila|Published 6 minutes ago

LORD Harold Samuel may have been responsible for the coinage or popularisation of the mantra, “location, location, location”. But, considering the currency of the catchphrase during the time when he is thought to have contrived the term, he may not have.

It doesn’t matter now. One thing is certain, however, he had a lot on his mind as a founder of one of London’s largest property companies, which did not include Australia.

Australia, however, is a fascinating country, and everything about it is a compelling read. From its founding by the Empire whose sun never set, to their contentious encounter with the Eora people, the First Nation of that vast free-standing island, the story of the people Down Under is rich with complexity.

Its prose, meandering through the country’s passion for sports, the iconic Sydney Opera House at the Sydney harbour and their most delectable accent in the English language, every episode in their book of history is gripping. For those millions of rolling acres of land, the rarest species of animals and many other firsts only possible in Australia, the universe had to play one small trick on them. It placed Australia in Asia.

It could easily be said that, notwithstanding the vagaries wrought by a momentous change or transition, the mechanics of change are themselves not immediately perceptible. Only chronology will reliably capture the footprints, whose indelible markers will render the events determinable in posterity.

So many things have changed since 1788. The sun has set on the British Empire. Its successor, Pax Americana, has entered the Thucydides trap, to a point of no return. And the hegemon seeks to ensure that its last battle frontier will be in Asia. And whatever its fate, it will inevitably be tied to that of Australia.

Critical to note is that the dark, empty void of time zero may not have heard the explosion of the Big Bang, for it was neither big nor a bang. Only advanced technology can discern it 14 billion years later. And so would the critical moment of change from the singularity of the unipolar apex to the stealthy ushering of the moment of multipolarity. It will be heard by scholars and observers many aeons to come. And while the hegemon, blinded by other distracting realities, cannot see it, neither does Australia.

In Australia, at least the pragmatists among their lot have been championing the promotion and nurturing of good neighbourly relations with China. But they are outnumbered by war hawks who are persuaded by the inevitability of war between the US and China, with them playing some NATO adjacent role in that eventuality.

There is some degree of intellectual awkwardness when forced to choose between two contrived extremes or false alternatives. No matter the true definition of neighbourliness from either of the extremes, any man who encourages their ally to fight their neighbour disrespects the ally. Between the definition of a geographic neighbour and an ideological one, the pragmatists have sadly lost to the awkwardness of this bipolarity. To be called a Western democracy, whatever that means, Australia must pay a high price for this proclivity.

And in pursuit of a loosely defined strategy called “the China containment policy”, Australia’s pragmatic viewpoints, one after the other, capitulated to the ubiquitous desire for war with China in domino fashion. And what better way to contain the dragon than through its neighbours, an impressive lineup of countries to be sure. These include Australia, the Philippines and South Korea.

The biggest contraption of them all is a defence and intelligence foursome called “the Quad”. Led by the US, it evinces the containment of China by Australia from the south, hosting nuclear armed submarines, with Japan winging it from the east, hosting significant US military deployments in the empire of Hirohito. Bringing up the rear is India from the west, constantly jousting with China for one reason or the other.

There are two flash points to monitor closely. The first is a possible conflict between China and the Philippines in the South China Sea. The second is a blue water naval skirmish between the US and China over Taiwan, that island of mainland China which the United Nations refused to recognise as an independent country. Worse still, even the United States, using a contraption of deception called ‘strategic ambiguity’, does not recognise Taiwan diplomatically!

Australia finds itself in this position because of a generally nice-sounding concept called “location, location, location”. Never had the sweetness of this catchphrase sound so menacing. The greater the geo-strategic vantage of the location, the more amplified the chances of being visited by war or the Americans, whoever gets there first.

Think of the Suez Canal in the Mediterranean, or the Bab-el-Mandeb Strait, the Houthis’ prestigious real estate in the mouth of the Red Sea. There is also the Strait of Hormuz, the most sensitive global oil chokepoint, the highly sought-after Panama Canal and the Strait of Malacca, the world’s busiest yet narrowest navigational thoroughfare. Pity the South African emigres to Australia, as they probably may have moved from the frying pan into the fire.

If your area is a viable alternative like Gaza, the stakes suddenly rise to the debilitating heights of genocide. South Africa is next, portending a new violent chapter in the US regime change manual. If South Africa continues its relations with the founding BRICS member countries, Reuben E Brigety II, the former ambassador of the US to South Africa, had warned, the country will soon be visited by war or by the US, whichever comes first.

The most premium estate that could be said to elevate Australia into a strategic geolocation is the Darwin Port in the far northwest of the island. In April of 2025, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese announced that he would be cancelling the 99-year lease awarded to a Chinese company. Not only is such an announcement dividing the polity both morally and politically, but it may also force Canberra to violate its legal obligations in investment bilateral agreements between itself and its most important economic interlocutor, China!

By 2014, the port was struggling and neglected, with nearly 70% of its critical infrastructure having exceeded its lifespan. With its export volumes tottering around 2 million tons, the lowest recorded, the Northern Territory Government issued a tender, which was responded to by sixty companies. After a rigorous and thorough elimination process, Landbridge Group, a Chinese company, was awarded a 99-year lease contract.

Hardly three years into the contracted lease, the election of the Scott Morrison government sought to scupper the deal, commissioning a comprehensive review on its merits or otherwise. The review concluded that no irregularities existed, nor did the lessee pose a national security threat to the sovereignty of Australia.

Anthony Albanese, who assumed power in 2022, may have restored the diplomatic engagements with China. But he, too, had to succumb to the groundswell of remonstration against leaving the Darwin port in the hands of the Chinese company.

Complicating matters is that the port is located fifteen kilometres from the US Marine Corps rotational base with 2500 marines. Besides, the US Indo-Pacific Strategic Military Report had identified the Darwin port as a suitable base for the B-1B Lancer Strategic bomber long-range aircraft. The Report then offered to fund the Darwin port at $300 million (R5.2 billion) only on one condition. Australia must reclaim the port and kick the Chinese out.

The Australian economy has not been an aloof and untouched bystander. For an economy that has seen its heights of growth in 2021, recording a hefty 5.4% GDP expansion, the subsequent years have taken a bruising toll. It has been declining since then, recording 4.1% in 2022, 2% in 2023 and 1% last year. For all the burdens that the economy bears, where it will finally settle in the fourth quarter of 2025 is anybody’s conjecture.

Even with an overall growing mining output, bolstered by lithium, coal and copper, the economy is not spared from the pressures of rising geopolitical tensions. Iron ore, Australia’s important commodity, which contributes over 27% of export revenues, is in a spot of bother. At 51 billion tonnes, it boasts the largest reserves in the world. It is a sector that employs 150 000 people. BHP Billiton, supplying 83% of China’s demand, is the island’s main supplier to China.

Arguably, there has been a disconnect between the selling power of Australia and the uncoordinated buying leverage of individual Chinese mining companies. The consequence has been the distortion of price such that at some point, a ton mined at $20 in Australia would be sold to China at $100 per ton!

Beijing decided to form the China Minerals Resource Group to integrate the procurement demands of its major domestic steel enterprises. Driven by the need to centralise the bargaining leverage and external negotiations capacity of these buyers, the Group would be responsible for price discovery as well. A few weeks ago, the Beijing honchos announced that all Australian iron ore sold to China shall be bought in Yuan.

This is a crisis of enormous proportions, especially because BHP Billiton has significant American funds as investors. If they disagree, they stand to lose $30bn!

This is a moment of crisis for Australia. Perhaps Winston Churchill was right. Never let a good crisis go to waste. Or was it Machiavelli?

* Ambassador Bheki Gila is a Barrister-at-Law.

** The views expressed here do not reflect those of the Sunday Independent, Independent Media, or IOL.

Get the real story on the go: Follow the Sunday Independent on WhatsApp.